Weeden Nichols: A sorrowful pilgrimage to Trinity Site open house

On April 4, 2015, my spouse, Rosalie, and I made a pilgrimage — not of faith or devotion — but of sorrow. The Trinity Site is outside and to the northwest of the Tularosa Basin, on once privately owned ranch lands. This year, an April open house became available, as well as one for October. It is a stretch to say the site is "open" to visitors. Visitors are closely checked, controlled and supervised.

We set out from Las Cruces in the dark, going by way of Interstate 25 and Highway 380 to the road leading south to Stallion Range Gate. We arrived at 8:20 a.m. It took us 58 minutes to move up to the gate. Our identification was checked. Outside the gate was a demonstration by the "Downwinders" — people who had been downwind of the test and who had suffered health consequences. They were augmented by their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, relatives, and other supporters. We waved to them in a supportive fashion. Trinity Site was another 17 miles inside the range.

Parking was supervised by security personnel and volunteers. Ground Zero was a quarter-mile walk north of the parking area, enclosed by cyclone fencing. Even though it was not cold, the sky was mostly overcast, and a chill wind was blowing.

There were a few visitors as old as we (I am 75), and a very few older. Most were young. I think few of those my age have the memories and associations I have regarding the "atom bomb," due to the fact that I learned to read early. I was equipped only with my cane as we walked to the black obelisk marking Ground Zero; however, in a sense, I was carrying a lot of baggage.

I vividly remember the Life magazine feature in September 1945 on the effects of a nuclear weapon explosion. I was horrified and frightened by the effects of the blast and heat, and the immediate effects of the radiation. I don't recall much in the article regarding the long-term harm. I am not sure at what point it dawned on me that such weapons could be turned on us, but I do know I spent the years from ages 6 to 12 in a fairly constant state of terror. I remember being frightened by the sound of airplane engines at night, fearing each airplane I heard might be delivering an atom bomb.

As we neared the obelisk, I tried to assess the mood of the crowd. Generally, the mood was not appropriately somber, but neither was it festive (which I would have thought deplorable). My sense of the mood of the young people was mostly an air of uncertainty. Most younger people were having their photographs taken, standing in front of the black obelisk or beside it.

Interestingly, there were a number of Japanese among the crowd. I had stood under the detonation point of the Nagasaki bomb, exactly 20 years after that weapon had been delivered. A peace park and museum had been established there. I had been impressed by the gentle determination of the Japanese people with whom I spoke at that place on that day, that such a thing should never happen again.

At the Trinity Site, I had no sense of mood or attitude on the part of the Japanese people present. Among them were members of what was, apparently, a documentary filming crew. The interviewer was asking questions of Americans, apparently randomly chosen. I did not see anyone my age or older being interviewed. I wished the interviewer had singled me out. I would have said some of the things I shall have said before I finish this essay.

There may be, among the U.S. armed forces, individuals who love war and want war, but not many. As a human being and a soldier, I neither like nor want war. However, I am aware that some wars are unavoidable, and that is why I served. (I am a regular Army warrant officer on the retired rolls.) My desire is that international conflicts be settled by diplomacy, cooperation, enlightened self-interest, and reciprocity. Most who serve know the death, injury and suffering that war brings. We know the economic and environmental damage war brings. As military members, we are ready to serve and are proud to serve, but we know that no one really "wins" a war.

I am not so naive as to think nations ever really conformed to Christian "just war" principles, or to whatever equivalents may have evolved in other religious traditions. Among the principles, explicit and implicit, are requirements that violence be a last resort, that no more force than necessary be utilized, and that non-combatants not be harmed or endangered. This means not only that urban civilian population centers may not be targeted, but also that targets that may otherwise be legitimate must be addressed in ways that do not endanger non-combatants. Conversely, a military force at war may not, itself, use proximity to non-combatants as a cover or shield. I am sorry if the reader thinks, "that's just war." It isn't, and that is not just my opinion.

Perhaps the thoughts of others who attended the Trinity Site open house ran in other directions, but those are the directions taken by my own thoughts. I'm glad we devoted 10 hours and 375 miles on a somewhat raw April Saturday to this experience, but I never shall attend again.

Weeden Nichols is a retired Army chief warrant officer and Vietnam veteran. He also worked for the state of Kansas and was a newspaper columnist.